Prosecutor: Beaman retrial logical despite high court's decision

Thursday

Jun 26, 2008 at 12:01 AMJun 26, 2008 at 12:34 AM

When the Illinois Supreme Court reversed Rockford native Alan Beaman’s murder conviction, it ripped the state’s case against Beaman as an unconstitutional affront to Beaman’s civil rights. But McLean County State’s Attorney William Yoder said he will try to convict Beaman again.

But the high court’s harsh tone and thorough critique hasn’t discouraged McLean County State’s Attorney William Yoder from trying once again to convict Beaman for the 1993 death of Jennifer Lockmiller, his on-again, off-again girlfriend. Yoder said he’ll present evidence against Beaman and “argue the case like they did the first time this case was tried.”

“Now, whether we’ll follow the same tact as the first prosecution or follow a different tact is another matter,” he said. “Nonetheless, the 12 jurors that sat and listened to this case in 1995 were all convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Alan Beaman committed this murder.”

He said a retrial “would be a logical conclusion of any prosecution.”

Beaman’s mother, Carol Beaman, said the Beaman family is preparing for another trial.

“If that’s what it takes to get through this, then that’s what it takes,” she said.

In the immediate term, she said the family’s focus is winning Alan’s release from prison on bond.

In 1995, a McLean County jury found Beaman guilty of killing Lockmiller, who was found dead in her apartment near the Illinois State University campus in Normal.

Yet prosecutors violated Beaman’s “constitutional right to due process of law” by withholding certain evidence that might have been favorable to Beaman’s defense, the Supreme Court said in its unanimous May 22 decision.

Beaman has claimed that he was in Rockford at the time of the slaying, and he therefore could not have committed it. He has suggested that another of Lockmiller’s boyfriends, identified by the court as John Doe, might have been responsible.

In an opinion by Justice Thomas Kilbride, the Supreme Court said prosecutors withheld four points of evidence that were “clearly favorable to (Beaman) in establishing (John) Doe as an alternative suspect.”

Still, Yoder said the high court’s decision does not actually require prosecutors to include that evidence in a second case against Beaman. He said that will be a question for debate.

“The Supreme Court in its ruling did not exclude any evidence from the previous trial, like they have in other cases,” he said. “They didn’t mandate that certain evidence come into trial. So we intend to present the evidence that we have to a jury and let the jury decide whether or not we’ve proven the case beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Yoder would not comment on whether he is considering John Doe as a suspect in the slaying. He also would not say whether he personally believes that Beaman is guilty.

“That’s not an appropriate question for me to respond to pretrial,” he said. “I’m restricted in what I can say by Supreme Court rules and I can’t comment on that.”

Aaron Chambers can be reached at (217) 782-2959 or achambers@rrstar.com.